Situating Sino-African Agricultural Demonstrations in the Global Food Order: Case Studies from Rwanda and Uganda
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Situating Sino-African agricultural demonstrations in the global food order: Case studies from Rwanda and Uganda by Isaac Lawther A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Environmental Studies in Environment and Resource Studies Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2016 © Isaac Lawther 2016 Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is the true copy of this thesis including any required final edits, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made available to the public. ii Abstract This thesis explores two Sino-African agricultural centres in Rwanda and Uganda that demonstrate Chinese agricultural technologies, and examines them as they relate to the changing global food order. When Sino-African agricultural engagement emerged as a topic of discussion in critical food studies literature in the mid-2000s, a number of scholars assumed the relationship was emblematic of a Chinese foray into Africa to grab land. However, since the first appearance of claims that the Chinese government and associated agricultural firms were orchestrating an agricultural venture in Africa, many Sino-African specialists focused their attention on countering these claims, instead arguing that China’s impact in rural Africa is quite modest, and the relation is in fact the continuation of a long history of engagement. Despite the active debate among scholars about Sino-African agricultural relations on the question of land grabbing, very little attention was paid to how disseminating Chinese agricultural technologies in Africa relates to the shifting dynamics of the global food landscape. Food studies literature tends to project the historic tendencies of Western opportunism in Africa onto contemporary dynamics of Sino- African affairs – leading to claims that China is neo-colonial and grabbing land. In countering these claims, Sino-African specialists orient their findings on a case-by-case basis, and argue that China’s presence in Africa is too small to make a considerable difference in Africa’s rural sector. The back and forth between these two narratives has ultimately been unproductive when trying to draw conclusions about the current relationship between China, Africa, and the politics of global food and agriculture. In this thesis, I aim to resituate the debate on Sino-African agricultural partnerships to consider it as part of the changing global food system. To do so, I ask a question that is seldom presented in existing literature: Why is it that African countries are keen to articulate with China in their own agricultural development? This seemingly simple question helps to bridge the gap between the opposing positions on Sino-African agricultural relations as it engages African countries on how they make decisions in determining their own agricultural trajectory. It also explores what it is that China offers in agricultural development from the perspective of those that it partners with. The study is based on two Sino-African agricultural technology demonstration centres that were born out of the Forum on China Africa Cooperation summit in 2006. In asking this question, I arrive at three main conclusions. First, I find that China’s agricultural technologies are relatively easy to adopt in the rural African setting, and that building partnerships with China offers a window of opportunity for African countries to determine their own developmental trajectory. Second, I find that the Sino- African agricultural development centres allow the Chinese companies that run them preferential access to local markets. Third, I find that the relationship is not without its problems, and its impact should not be inflated, as it ultimately remains a work in progress. iii Acknowledgements I have many people to thank for helping me work through this study. First of all, I wish to thank Jennifer Clapp for her guidance throughout my studies at the University of Waterloo. Her expertise on how to craft an argument has been invaluable, and this project would not have been possible without her support. I would also like to thank Derek Hall for the thorough and insightful feedback that he provided along the way. I am very grateful to everyone who was kind enough to participate in this project while I was in Rwanda and Uganda. I learned a great deal from every person I spoke with, and I am indebted to everyone who sat patiently with me while I learned how to be a better interviewer. I owe particular thanks to Albert Ruhakana for helping me settle into the research process in Rwanda, as well as to Mediatrice Hatungimana for helping me connect with willing participants. I would also like to thank Hu Yingping for always being keen to host me for lunch at the RATDC, and for helping me find and contact people who he had trained at the centre. I owe tremendous thanks to Gertrude Atukunda and Mujib Nkambo for connecting me with a network of people to speak with in Uganda, and I would also like to thank the staff and research technicians at the ARDC with whom I had many lively conversations. A big thanks goes to my parents, Gail Kerbel and Chas Lawther, for encouraging me to pursue a Master’s degree; for being patient with me while I worked through this thesis; and for being stand-up housemates! I would also like to thank Melanie Harding for giving this thesis a much needed proofread. Finally, I would like to thank Caitlin Scott, Helena Shilomboleni, Wesley Tourangeua, Beth Timmers, Matt Gaudreau, and the many other students who have spent time working with the Waterloo Food Issues Group. You have all played an enormous role in making this process so enjoyable. iv Table of Contents AUTHOR’S DECLARATION II ABSTRACT III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IV LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS VII CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 1 INTRODUCTION 1 SIGNIFICANCE AND CONTRIBUTION TO FIELD OF STUDY 5 BACKGROUND ON CASE SELECTION AND FIELD WORK 7 METHODS 9 ANALYTICAL APPROACH 11 THESIS STRUCTURE 12 CHAPTER 2: UNDERSTANDING CHINA AND AFRICA THROUGH THEORY AND HISTORY 14 OPTIMISTS AND PESSIMISTS: THEORETICAL LENSES ON SINO-AFRICAN AFFAIRS 14 PESSIMISM, FOCAC, AND THE LAND GRAB 14 OPTIMISM AND ALTERNATIVES TO THE WEST 19 THE HISTORY OF SINO-AFRICAN AFFAIRS 22 THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CPC’S FOREIGN POLICY 23 NON-ALIGNMENT 26 THE SINO-SOVIET SPLIT, THE CULTURAL REVOLUTION, AND ADMISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS 28 ECONOMIC REFORMS AND NEW INSTITUTIONS 32 CHAPTER 3: RWANDA AND UGANDA’S AGRICULTURAL PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES 37 INTRODUCTION 37 FOOD SECURITY IN RWANDA AND UGANDA 38 AGRICULTURAL POLICY AND RWANDA 41 AGRICULTURAL POLICY IN UGANDA 44 CONCLUSION 48 CHAPTER 4: THE FOCAC DEMONSTRATION CENTRES IN RWANDA AND UGANDA 50 INTRODUCTION 50 DELIBERATING THE DEMONSTRATION CENTRES 51 RWANDA 51 UGANDA 53 PROTOCOLS OF ENGAGEMENT 55 DEMONSTRATIONS AT THE CHINA-RWANDA AGRICULTURE TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION CENTRE (RATDC) 57 SERICULTURE 57 WATER AND SOIL CONSERVATION 59 RICE 60 MUSHROOM 62 DEMONSTRATIONS AT THE CHINA-UGANDA FRIENDSHIP AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION CENTRE (UATDC) 63 AQUACULTURE 63 v OPEN WATER CAGED FARMING 66 CURRENT STATUS OF THE CENTRES 67 CONCLUSION 69 CHAPTER 5: THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF SINO-AFRICAN AGRICULTURAL DEMONSTRATION CENTRES. 72 INTRODUCTION 72 THE EASE OF ADOPTING CHINESE AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES 73 PREFERENTIAL ACCESS FOR CHINESE FIRMS 80 LIMITING FACTORS, AND A LACK OF COORDINATION 85 CONCLUSION 90 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 93 REFERENCES 98 APPENDICES 107 APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 107 APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW CODES 107 vi List of Abbreviations ARDC Aquaculture Research and Development Centre AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Plan CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CIP Crop Intensification Program CPC Communist Party of China DFID Department for International Development DSIP Agricultural Sector Development Strategy and Investment Plan EDPRS I Economic Development Plan and Poverty Reduction Strategy FAFU Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University FOCAC Forum on China Africa Cooperation GoR Government of Rwanda GoU Government of Uganda GRAIN Genetic Resources International MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries, and Fisheries MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture NaCRRI National Crop Resources Research Institute NaFIRRI National Fisheries Resources Research Institute NaLIRRI National Livestock Resources Research Institute NARO National Agricultural Research Organization NEPAD New Plan for African Development NDP New Development Plan NRM National Resistance Movement OAU Organization for African Unity RAB Rwanda Agriculture Board RATDC China-Rwanda Agriculture Technology Demonstration Centre SPAT Strategic Plan for Agricultural Transformation UATDC Uganda-China Friendship Agricultural Technology Demonstration Centre USAID United States Agency for International Development vii Chapter 1: Introduction and Methodology Introduction In 2006, China and 48 African countries met in Beijing to discuss a new set of commitments in economic and developmental cooperation. This gathering was the third meeting of a platform created by China and African state leaders called the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC, or The Forum). While FOCAC had convened twice before, its third meeting in 2006 was a summit unlike the conferences that had preceded it. The 2006 summit went beyond the ministerial level, and it was attended by state leaders; it took place in the Great Hall of the People, in Beijing, and it was the largest gathering of Chinese and African delegates in history up to that point. The Forum is a catchall venue for China and African states to discuss trade, development, and cultural exchanges, and it is used as a stage to decorate and publicize Sino-African relations. The 2006 summit precipitated an array of agreements between the Chinese government and African states, and it attracted a groundswell of attention from commentators around the globe.1 However, the claim that the forum keeps with good faith, and benefits both China and African countries evenly has been a point of contention.